371 Pa. Super. 414 - Malinder v. Jenkins Elevator & MacHine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably 374 Pa. Super. 118 - Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc. (1988), 440 Pa. Super. 195 - Estate of Pew (1994)
4 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · 13 Cal. 3d 804 - Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. · Scalza v. United States · 27 Cal. 3d 741 - Thompson v. County of Alameda · Carrender v. Fitterer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When an invitee enters business premises, discovers dangerous conditions which are both obvious and avoidable, and nevertheless proceeds voluntarily to encounter them, the doctrine of assumption of risk operates merely as a counterpart to the possessor’s lack of duty to protect the invitee from those risks. By voluntarily proceeding to encounter a known or obvious danger, the invitee is deemed to have agreed to accept the risk and to undertake to look out for himself. It is precisely because the invitee assumes the risk of injury from obvious and avoidable dangers that the possessor owes the invitee no duty to take measures to alleviate those dangers. Thus, to say that the invitee assumed the risk of injury from a known and avoidable danger is simply another way of expressing the lack of any duty on the part of the possessor to protect the invitee against such dangers. sfc sft >¡í $ >¡í ... the legal consequence of the invitee’s assumption of a known and avoidable risk is that the possessor of land is relieved of a duty of care to the invitee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“1. Type 1 — Express assumption of the risk-where the plaintiff has given his express consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation to exercise care for the plaintiffs protection. 2. Type 2 — Implied assumption of the riskwhére the plaintiff has entered into some relation with the defendant which the plaintiff knows to involve the risk and is, thus, regarded as having impliedly relieved the defendant of a duty to protect plaintiff against the risk. 3. Type 3 — Implied assumption of the risk-where the plaintiff is aware of a risk created by the defendant and proceeds or continues voluntarily to encounter it and the plaintiffs conduct in so doing is entirely reasonable in that the risk is small and/or the plaintiff proceeds with all due caution. 4. Type 4 — Implied assumption of the risk-where the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a known risk created by the defendants conduct but the plaintiff acts unreasonably in doing so and, therefore, is contribytorily negligent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.